(Im)mutability of Same Gender Attraction

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

A certain contribution will be genetic (complex, not a single gene). A certain contribution will be from in utero environmental exposure (mother's hormone milieu, infection, mother's immune response, placenta, etc), and then a certain percentage will be post-birth measurable environmental exposure (chemicals, toxins, formula feed, etc). And then a percentage will be more complex, more difficult to understand and measure environmental factors.

Ironically, the formulation above is the same formulation used in describing complex "unsolved" diseases, like schizophrenia.

That's the good stuff I'm talking about.

[All-American]

With all due respect to those who disagree with me, I think the issue of mutability is an important one, though not an all-important one, in this debate. If same-gender attraction cannot be circumvented or altered, but is as much an expression of one's genetic code as height, race, eye color, et cetera are, then for a government to pass any law discriminating against it in any form is questionable, if not outright wrong. It makes no sense for government to do anything detrimental to gays if a person is going to be gay irrespective of any environmental influence or choice.

This is why I asked for reference to scholarly commentary on either side of the argument. SU has been customarily helpful with his usual declaratory fiat that no such evidence exists, that the consensus has already been reached, and that it's incredible that I should be so late in the game in asking the question. What scholarly contributions that HAVE been made suggest that the case is not quite so open and shut. By all appearances, the cause of same-gender attraction is not nearly so simple as being born that way, but is a combination of multiple factors, including genetic predisposition and environmental factors (many of which are beyond the control of the individual).

The question that follows is whether action OUGHT to be taken to prevent or alter same gender attraction. But such a question presumes that it can even be done.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

GEnetic testing has been around for much less time than civil rights. For all we know, they'll find a gay gene some day. More likely than not?

Absolutely not.

But really--go ahead and ignore the twin studies which don't show anything close to a 100% concordance rate between identical twins. In the meantime, just rephrase as "For all I know".

[CardiacCoug]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Absolutely not.

But really--go ahead and ignore the twin studies which don't show anything close to a 100% concordance rate between identical twins. In the meantime, just rephrase as "For all I know".

I agree with you. There is no way being gay will turn out to be determined by a single gene. As Waters said, it's pretty clearly going to turn out to be multifactorial, with many different contributory genes involved. I think to a lesser extent there will be environmental contributions (pre-natal hormonal milieu, etc.) and nobody can rule out some minor component of parental/peer influence in homosexuality, either, although I doubt it's very significant.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by CardiacCoug

I agree with you. There is no way being gay will turn out to be determined by a single gene. As Waters said, it's pretty clearly going to turn out to be multifactorial, with many different contributory genes involved. I think to a lesser extent there will be environmental contributions (pre-natal hormonal milieu, etc.) and nobody can rule out some minor component of parental/peer influence in homosexuality, either, although I doubt it's very significant.

How does the genetic component of homosexuality not destroy the Mormon or other orthodox view of the existence of God?

How can you reconcile the two?

It poses a very difficult challenge to orthodox theology.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

How does the genetic component of homosexuality not destroy the Mormon or other orthodox view of the existence of God?

How can you reconcile the two?

Mutations or hormone baths are of the devil?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

Mutations or hormone baths are of the devil?

If you opine that God had a purpose for our lives and a plan and wouldn't allow us to be tempted more than we can withstand, but then allows, creates or somehow results in an attraction which diverts from the basic purpose of procreation, how can you reconcile that?

What sort of God would do that?

If there is no God, there is no Satan, there is only nature, and our existence does not matter.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you opine that God had a purpose for our lives and a plan and wouldn't allow us to be tempted more than we can withstand, but then allows, creates or somehow results in an attraction which diverts from the basic purpose of procreation, how can you reconcile that?

What sort of God would do that?

If there is no God, there is no Satan, there is only nature, and our existence does not matter.

If we are embryonic Gods then can we be tempted more than we can bear? Perhpas that is not a meaningful concept, maybe it is like a CTR ring.

God promises us equality in judgement, not in starting point or opportunity. He created our conditions, that it unfolds with imperfections is incidental to the temporal nature of our existence. What we each faced and how we responded will be the basis for his judgement.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by creekster

If we are embryonic Gods then can we be tempted more than we can bear? Perhpas that is not a meaningful concept, maybe it is like a CTR ring.

God promises us equality in judgement, not in starting point or opportunity. He created our conditions, that it unfolds with imperfections is incidental to the temporal nature of our existence. What we each faced and how we responded will be the basis for his judgement.

I can posit a magnanimous judge whose judgment exceeds our own understanding, even within an orthodox framework.

However, if one of the stated LDS purposes of life is to gain a body, to grow in understanding and grow into family units, but nature interferes with male-female unit building, making it impossible for one to be attracted to the gender one needs to be to move forward, how can that be the result of a divine plan, instead the cruel joke of cold nature waiting to snuff out humanity as her last final act of insanity?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I can posit a magnanimous judge whose judgment exceeds our own understanding, even within an orthodox framework.

However, if one of the stated LDS purposes of life is to gain a body, to grow in understanding and grow into family units, but nature interferes with male-female unit building, making it impossible for one to be attracted to the gender one needs to be to move forward, how can that be the result of a divine plan, instead the cruel joke of cold nature waiting to snuff out humanity as her last final act of insanity?

If I knew everyhting I could tell you. Becasue I don't, I have to have faith in the mulligan of judgement to make up for these sorts of issues. There will be many.